Chickenhawk Distractions

On a day when Wall Street will still be swooning over record highs, some Republicans will be attempting to gloat over a special election in South Carolina, and the long neglected issue of sexual assault in the U.S. military has finally received a small bit of attention, what you won't likely hear enough about today is the real issue Americans need to pay attention to in the Middle East - Syria.

We're well aware of what the right-wing extremists will be screaming about today, including those in Congress who will be holding yet another pointless hearing on Capitol Hill. For all the pearl-clutching and empty threats the right-wing nuts have thrown at President Obama, the facts behind the Benghazi, Libya incident of 2012 still don't rise to the level of a cover-up - and have less to do with Obama in 2013 than they do Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The truly important focus point in the Middle East right now - the one where both neo-con chickenhawks and liberal interventionists are squawking at President Obama that he should jump into another war - is already beginning to to be aimed towards a resolution in Moscow.

In case you missed it, Secretary of State John Kerry landed in Moscow Monday. By Tuesday, Kerry and Russia's current Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, had already announced a diplomatic conference in the coming weeks to push the warring factions in Syria into peace.

Few Americans seem to understand Russia's position in the Middle East is very similar to the U.S. position, politically. That hasn't changed much, even with the end of the Cold War, and the changes inside the Kremlin. While the U.S. held up dictators like Mubarak in Egypt for 30 years, the Russians have propped up the Assad family in Syria for just as long.

The difference now, however, is that the biggest political players in the region are no longer just Russia and the U.S.

Hezbollah has made significant political gains in the region over the last few years, thanks in large part to Iran. Militant Islamic groups like Al Qaeda have also gained power in the region over the past few years, as has Israel, the dominant power in the area at the moment.

All of this adds up to a political conflict that isn't simply a proxy war between two groups of old intelligence members - a group of old Russians and a group of old Americans, many of whom are still fighting the Cold War. Instead, helping settle the Syrian conflict has become a multi-team challenge, with plenty of extra wild cards in the deck.

There are plenty of reasons for President Obama to be both cautious and skeptical of involving the U.S in Syria, not the least of which is the still ongoing military mess in Afghanistan.

Some of the best reasons though, were outlined by the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, who asked all the armchair chickenhawk generals the questions they've tried hardest to avoid.

Most importantly, Robinson asks, "Have we learned nothing at all," from the last decade-plus of war?

It seems that President Obama may have learned a least a few of those lessons, even if the chickenhawks urging him to go to war haven't learned a thing.

Hungering For Action

While the right-wing media feedback loop is having a pointless apoplectic fit about Libya - as Jonathan Bernstein pointed out on Monday - all their screaming and hollering won't change the facts on that subject, as we outlined them six months ago.

It also won't change what Congress will be working on this week - and it won't change the fact that millions of older, low income, often housebound Americans, will go hungry today.

Air traffic controllers, some defense department employees, and many federal regulatory employees - from meat inspectors to seasonal archeologists - have all been exempted from the biting sequestration cuts that keep hurting more and more Americans. Meanwhile, one of America's key nutrition programs, Meals on Wheels, is limping around on fiscal flat tires. Unlike the breathless hype that's become a key feature surrounding so many other budget issues - like the deficit - hungry old people just don't seem to merit the concerns of Congress today.

For those concerned about what the sequester cuts are doing to America's elderly, food isn't the only thing they're hungering for.

Across the nation, older Americans affected by the inaction of Congress to fix the federal budget cuts - cuts that were caused by Congress' budgetary inaction in the first place - can't seem to score a moment on national TV, a minute on national radio, or a more than a short story in most newspapers.

The reason for this limited focus is partly obvious. Older, somewhat reclusive individuals don't have their own multi-billion dollar lobby to fight for them, like American 'brick and mortar' retail companies, who got the Senate to pass the sales tax bill they wanted on Monday.

Typical users of Meals on Wheels also aren't exactly the strange, inflammatory, seditious, ratings grabbers from the annual NRA convention, so the cable "news" networks aren't exactly looking to talk about the hungry old people, or help anyone do anything about them.

In large part, that's the problem Meals on Wheels was set up to solve, as those who usually benefit from the program are most often quiet individuals who no longer can get up and raise hell. Many can't even get out of their homes.

For all the screaming about debt and deficits we've heard over the years from the Republicans in Congress - and a few Democrats too - we've heard virtually nothing from those same publicity-happy members of Congress as the news recently came out that the Federal government can now afford to pay down the debt for the first time in six years. You might even think if America can pay off our collective debts that we could help our elderly at least not starve. Reality seems to say otherwise.

We're sure the thought that America can finally begin to pay off the debts that our nation's government ran up during the Bush years is a comforting idea to the elderly Americans who are struggling today to get through another day with little or nothing to eat.

Hidden Costs

As some of the kids we know began to graduate from college and high school, and some personal events of staff members drive up their budgetary expenses this month, we've all started to look a bit deeper at the costs of our American life, both obvious and hidden.

Sadly, as we've been counting the two basic types of costs, we've realized many Americans today only see one of those expenses. The garment factory collapse in Bangladesh nearly two weeks ago is a perfect example of the blindness of Americans to the category of indirect costs.

The building collapse, which killed over 600 people, was at a factory producing clothes for American and Western corporations. Since the collapse, many ugly facts have come out about the building and its owners - not the least of which is that the building which contained the factory had three extra, unlicensed stories added to it. What's worse, the architect for the building that held the factories now says they were never designed for use as factories, only for shops and offices.

Those 600-plus dead workers aren't something most Americans think of when they look at the tag on that new designer blouse, or those new boots.

Unfortunately, a large group of Americans do not appear to be any more savvy about the costs of war, either - even after the misadventures of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

This past weekend, some of the less ethical Western news media, the right-wing political chickenhawks, and the government of Israel all seemed desperate to push the U.S. to join in the ongoing Syrian civil war. Israeli forces attacked inside Syria, reportedly targeting Iranian missiles controlled by the current Syrian government. Not surprisingly, that government's leader, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, saw Israel's attack as an act of war - which the U.S. right-wing neo-cons seem all-too-inclined to support.

For all the bluster of the chickenhawks to insist the U.S. immediately jump into another pointless land war in the Middle East, President Obama quite obviously isn't taking their bait. His graying hair and the deepening lines on his face are obvious enough signs that Obama understands the full costs of war. The President also may have already had intelligence that it wasn't the Assad regime that used chemical weapons recently - it was the rebels instead.

Either way, you can also see Obama understands by his actions that leaping to conclusions as Senators Graham and McCain have on Syria have a high price.

That's why Obama's agenda this weekend wasn't focused on Syria. The President finished his trip to Mexico and Costa Rica,  gave a positive and hope filled commencement address at Ohio State, and today, his plan is to keep the focus on the item Americans care about most - jobs - even after Friday's positive jobs numbers were released.

Meanwhile, some of the same chicken hawks in Congress who can always find their way in front of television cameras, are only now finally making their way back to Capitol Hill, to do the jobs the American people elected them to do.

There are direct and indirect costs to most things each of us do, and - like the deaths of over 600 souls in Bangladesh - as Americans, we don't always seem to check the label for the total cost.

Thankfully, when it comes to the idea of sending troops into Syria, President Obama seems well aware of the full cost, and - so far - he seems to understand the American people simply aren't willing to pay the hidden costs this time around.